Representatives Jeff Grisamore (R-Lee's Summit, left) and Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City, right). Picture courtesy, Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.

Republicans fired back against those comments in debate on Thursday. Lee’s Summit representative Jeff Grisamore said, “I frankly find it abhorrent and offensive that there has been such gross misrepresentations of this issue that members of the minority would imply that anybody on this floor, in this chamber, supports bigotry and discrimination.”

Minority Floor Leader Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City) re-iterated his party’s stance that the bill makes it easier to discriminate against the disabled, cancer patients, minorities and other groups. He told Grisamore, “You can own that. I’m not calling you a racist, I’m not calling you a bigot, I have never done that, nor will I … if you’re upset about it then you have some introspection to do on your own. Don’t blame me.”

AUDIO: Hear the exchange between Representatives Mike Talboy and Jeff Grisamore.

Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (R-Eureka) defended the bill, saying it is a return to fairness and justice. He says it returns Missouri law to what it was for nearly 50 years before the current standard was enacted. “During that time, when the Missouri law was identical to the federal law and the minority party controlled this chamber for nearly that entire time, I don’t believe I heard anyone say that we needed to change the law … that Missouri law was racist, that it was unfair to employees, that we were being mistreated in the courts, that people were not having their due process rights shown and were not being protected fairly and equally under the law.”

Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis, at the microphone). Picture courtesy, Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.

Jones spoke for 11 minutes before calling the previous question, cutting off debate and forcing a vote on the bill.

Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis) called on her fellow Democrats to relax and just let measure pass, saying she was confident it would be vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon. She said, “What really makes me happy, Mister Speaker, is to know that those who are pushing House Bill 1219 will not have the override votes that they need to enact this horrible piece of legislation.”

The measure passed 89-68, with 13 Republicans voting with Democrats against it. Such a margin would fall short of a veto override, which requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

The Governor vetoed the measure last year. When asked if he will indeed do so again, he said he has not yet seen this year’s language, but added, “My position on those measures hasn’t shifted.”

AUDIO: Mike Lear reports (1:01)

Represntative Doug Funderburk (back, second from left) presides over a meeting of the House Tax Reform Committee.

Representatives Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peters) and Margo McNeil (D-Florissant) have both presented bills to the House Committee on Tax Reform that would enter Missouri into the multi-state Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Twenty-four states are a part of that agreement so far, and the legislatures in others are considering bills to join.

Read more about the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

Funderburk and McNeil agree the collection of taxes on internet sales would level the playing field for Missouri businesses. McNeil says they are, “being undermined by the antiquated tax system we have that was written in the 1930s and hasn’t taken into consideration the internet.”

The two differ over whether to make the change revenue-neutral to the state. Funderburk says it should be. “The people that I’m working with in trying to get this to the floor, and to a vote, and hopefully one day to the Governor’s desk, we want to make sure, especially in this down economy, that we’re not asking Missourians to pay more taxes than they’re currently paying today.”

Funderburk does not know how he might accomplish his goal yet, however. He explains one idea that has been floated, “taking each year’s collected revenue via the Streamlined Use and Sales Tax and applying it to a lowering of the overall sales tax of the next year.” He says if that idea does not seem feasible, “we’re going to have to look for other avenues.”

McNeil says to not bring in additional state revenue would be to miss an opportunity. “Local cities and counties have a big hole in their revenue bucket, but also the state of Missouri has a large hole in our revenue bucket that is only going to get wider as more people decide to use the internet.”

Take a look at the two pieces of legislation, HB 1356 and HB 1215.

The disagreement mirrors the philosophical difference in opinion that has been stated and re-stated this session between the Republicans in the House, who have said they do not want to increase taxes, and Democrats who say a new revenue source is necessary to balance the budget.

McNeil says, “I think I’m relatively safe in saying my Democratic colleagues are in favor of it staying as a source of revenue in the state of Missouri.

She adds, however, she will not rule out voting for a bill that is revenue-neutral. “There are good reasons to support this bill other than bringing in revenue to the State of Missouri because our local businesses are being undermined and they are going out of business.”

Funderburk, who chairs the Tax Reform Committee, hopes to have legislation ready for a vote in the next two weeks.

AUDIO: Mike Lear reports (1:00)

Several senators say he would have been good to serve as an associate director where he could get the experience needed to direct  the department.

Hall is 36.  He will join the governor’s office staff.   Nixon deputy counsel Chris Pieper will become acting DED director.  He’s a former general counsel for the agency. 

The first major bills to be debated in the senate this year are ones rolling back discrimination laws, and limiting public employee unions’ ability to get money from their members and spend them as the union wants.

Democrats, outnumbered more than three-to-one in the senate, see that other Republican bills allow paying less than the prevailing wage in disaster areas, deal with right to work, and call for reviewing state rules that might be bothersome to small business.

Democrat leader Victor Callahan thinks Republicans are too cozy with business and ignoring broad public policy issues.

Other democrats complain those bills are Republican priorities instead of education funding, transportation problems, nuclear power plant siting, and other broader issues.  One Senator has asked, “who is setting the agenda?”

Republican leader Tom Dempsey responds, “It’s our agenda. We believe these are broad-based issues that affect the cost of doing business.”

The senate is likely to work on employment discrimination all day today.

AUDIO: Callahan/Green 28:46

House Democrat Steve Webb, head fo the Black Caucus, was joined by Rep. Tishaura Jones, assistant minority floor leader, in saying they’ll try to prevent a vote in either the House or Senate on a measure that would change the state’s workplace discrimination laws.

Sen. Shalonn “Kiki” Curls says democrats in the Senate fillibustered the bill, which would put stricter standareds in place for employees who sue for discrimination. The bill would also cap damages.

It would also limit the damages victims can recover.

Gov. Nixon vetoed the bill last year, saying it would roll back decades of civil rights progress. Webb and others say this bill is another attempt that strikes at the very principles of equality, and not just for African Americans, but for the disabled as well.

Republicans argue that the Senate bill would simply align Missouri law with federal job discrimination standards, therefore making Missouri a more business-friendly state.

Webb and Jones say they have heard no reports from any business saying they didn’t want to relocate or set up shop in Missouri because of our state’s discrimination standards.

As far as being stronger than federal requirements, Jones says, “We’re proud that Missouri’s standards are higher.”

And as far as whether reducing those standards would create jobs, Webb says, “If becoming more tolerant of discriminatory practices brings one job to Missouri, we don’t want it.”

Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (R-Lake St. Louis) is sponsoring HB 1455.

The House version, HB 1455, will be carried by Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (R-Lake St. Louis). He says, “Those manufacturers of vehicles … they need brakes, they need windshields, they need trim, they need engines … and not all of those are built right there on that spot.”

Parts makers qualify under the proposal if the products they make are used by an automaker. Companies with at least half of their sales coming from parts used to modify vehicles can also qualify for incentives.

Gatschenberger says it offers two options to those companies. “One is if you employee five employees, you’re gonna get the same benefits with withholding the taxes that you pay from the state for the benefit of the company. The other aspect of it … there’s a lot of companies in this state that are not going to be able to employ five people but they can employ two people. If they do two people and $100,000 of investment in their business, they can fall under the same guidelines.”

Gatschenberger says it also includes some clawback provisions.  ”Let’s say they have those two people but they lay two other people off. Then they lose the benefit. It’s not the specific people that they hire, it’s the total number of people.”

See the Governor’s Office’s release on the introduction of the legislation.

The package increases the standard incentive period to five years, from the three found in the 2010 language. Companies would get a tax break equaling 5 percent of their new payroll if wages are at the average for the county, 5.5 percent for wages that are 120 percent of that average and 6 percent for wages at least 140 percent of the county average.

Senator Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) is the sponsor of SB 691.

Gatschenberger notes the package opens up incentives to all auto manufacturers, not just Ford and General Motors, “So if Nissan thinks, ‘Hmm, we might want to put a plant somewhere but where are we going to put a plant,’ it’s making the carrot bigger and jucier.”

The Governor’s Office says the package boasts a lengthy list of bipartisan supporters. Also in the House are Speaker Steven Tilley (R-Perryville), Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (R-Eureka), Jerry Nolte (R-Gladstone), Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City), Assistant Minority Floor Leader Tishaura Jones (D-St. Louis), Minority Whip Mike Colona (D-St. Louis), Representative Stephen Webber (D-Columbia) and Representative Bert Atkins (D-Florrisant). Senator Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) is sponsoring the Senate version, SB 691 with Minority Floor Leader Senator Victor Callahan (D-Independence) a co-sponsor.

Debate on the bill has consumed most of this week’s floor time in the Senate.  Business groups claim courts have gone too far in making it easier for people to file employment discrimination suits.  Sponsor Brad Lager of Savannah wants to require those filing suit to prove discrimination was the motivating factor in their firing or lack of promotion.  The current standard requires only that it be a contributing factor.

                                        AUDIO: Lager :17 mp3

He says his proposal puts Missouri discrimination laws under the standard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its 1991 amendments.

Democrats are tying up the bill, complaining the bill makes it too hard for employees to protect themselves from discrimination and tilts the system too much toward business.  Or as Senator Maria Chappelle Nadal of University City puts it.

                                        AUDIO: Chappelle Nadal :05 mp3

Democrats say Republicans don’t want to compromise on anything…so the Democrats won’t allow a vote on the bill.

Northwest Missouri senator Brad Lager says court rulings have taken Missouri’s employment discrimination laws far afield. He wants to limit who can be sued, how much damages can be, tighten the standard of proof and make whistleblowers show that something illegal has happened–not that it might. “This legislation aims at bringing Missouri law back into alignment with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the way that employment law has been practiced in this state for over forty years, ” says Lager.

But critics like Maria Chapelle-Nadal think the proposal is, as she puts it, “shameful.” She says it’s a “slap in the face” to apply a 1964 standard to changed conditions in 2012.

The senate wrapped up its first day of debate by arguing whether age should be a “motivating factor” or a “contributing factor” in a discrimination suit. Lager prefers the tougher “motivating factor” standard that opponents say limits workers’ rights.

AUDIO: Part one of debate :50:43 mp3\

AUDIO: Debate, part two 51:58 mp3

Convenience store operators figure toll roads are not their friends. And the transportation department’s talk about having a private company turn I-70 into a toll road bothers the convenience store industry. Although the department talks about a system that would not eliminate any of the exits, convenience store representatives like Ron Leone worry about what the final contract would be.

AUDIO: Leone  :18  mp3

He says he almost fell out of his chair when he heard transportation department director Kevin Keith say as much as ten percent of the truck traffic that now uses 70 would like move to non-toll highways. He says that would be a major blow to the businesses he represents.

Joplin resident Joel Hamilton represents a company that has a major truck stop in Joplin and another one on I-70 at Oak Grove. He voices similar fears.

AUDIO: Hamilton  :10  mp3

An open system would retain the current interstate exit and entrance ramps. A closed system would limit access and exits–the turnpikes in Kansas and Oklahoma, for examples.

Hamilton argues toll roads also could hurt a lot of other people, not just operators like his company has.

AUDIO: Hamilton  :27  mp3

Legislators are considering law changes that would let the department contract with a private company to build and run I-70. Some critics of the idea question whether a public vote would be needed on a constitutional change clearing the way for that kind of contract. Keith says the department’s lawyers already have looked into that and feel no public vote would be needed.

Patent attorney Michael Wise testified by video conference from California at Thursday's hearing.

One person Barnes says could have stopped the project is Michael Wise, a patent attorney for Los Angeles, California-based law firm Perkins Coie. 

Wise testified under subpoena Thursday afternoon before the Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability. He said that he had been to Mamtek’s production facility in Wuyishan City in Fujian Province, China on three occasions: in November 2007, November 2009 and August 2010. The existence and status of that plant has been at question for those investigating the situation.

Wise says on the first visit he observed a production line capable of making 18 tons a year. By the second visit, a larger line had been added that was capable of putting out 60 tons a year. When he returned in August 2010, neither line was in operation and a cooling tower was being added to the larger line.

What those lines were making was less clear.  Wise says the Mamtek executives he worked with said it was sucralose, adding he drank tea they said was sweetened with product made there.  A sample was later sent to his firm in Los Angeles via its Shanghai office.  Wise says he never confirmed sucralose was being made at the site, however.

“I never questioned my client’s (Mamtek) representation to me that they were making sucralose because that’s the nature of the relationship.  I’m a patent attorney.”

It was before his last visit, Wise testified, and before the Moberly deal closed that he learned the plant’s future operation was in question. He explained the area had been put under a protected status he equated to that of a national park in the U.S. “The central government had decided that Wuyishan (City) was a protected area, kind of like Yosemite, and as a result of that they weren’t allowing new factories or new lines to be allowed to produce anything in that area, and I assumed it was because of the national park-like status of that area.”

Representative Jay Barnes (right) is joined Thursday by Senator Jim Lembke, who chairs the Senate version of Barnes' committee.

Barnes says, “If Michael Wise would have told people … the Chinese government has some problems with Mamtek’s operation it’s very likely possible that none of this would have happened.”

Wise noted in his testimony the disclaimer that he offered the City of Moberly in a letter to its attorney Tom Cunningham, making clear that he was working for Mamtek and suggesting that the City should do its own due diligence with its own patent lawyers, independently.

Barnes also points to Standard and Poor’s as an entity that could have delayed or stopped the project if it had evaluated the status of Mamtek’s China operation before giving Moberly’s bonds an A-minus rating. S&P Managing Director Geoffrey Buswick, also under subpoena, said the rating was based on Moberly’s promise to pay off the bonds.

The Chairman is now weighing whether to move on to considering legislation related to the Mamtek situation, or to call at least one more witness: former Mamtek CEO and project point man Bruce Cole.

“The conundrum is: our role as a legislative committee is to figure out what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future. I’m not sure what exactly Bruce Cole adds to that question. Given that we’ve spoken to so many other different fact witnesses, I think we’ve got a general idea of what the facts indeed were.” Barnes says he may call Cole if other committee members, or “Maybe I change my mind and think that maybe he (Cole) has something to say that maybe we need to propose X.”

AUDIO: Listen to the testimony of attorney Michael Wise – 1 hour, 26 minutes